"The Conspirator" with Evan Rachel Wood, Kevin Kline and Robin Wright Penn

Robert Redford has done a remarkable job in the filming of his latest movie "The Conspirator", which deals with the trial and execution of the assassins involved in the death of Abraham Lincoln, and the attempted murder, by Lewis Powell, of Secretary of State William H.Seward, who would later buy Alaska from Russia, in his home, where he was recovering from a carriage accident and lay in traction.

In addition there was also a plan, by three other conspirators, to kidnap or kill, both Vice President Johnson and General Grant. The latter was to have been at Ford's Theater that night, but in one of several instances of what can only be termed ESP, Mrs Grant persuaded her husband to depart Washington some 4 hours before the carnage began. (She would later save his life again in Chicago on the night of October 7th, 1876 when they were to have stayed over in a wooden hotel. Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicked the lanten, the hotel burned down, killing all, but sparing Grant and his wife, who were by now long gone.)

The movie is historically accurate and impeccably filmed. Out of necessity it confines itself to the trial proceedings of Mary Surratt, played with much dignity by Robin Wright Penn, as the widowed boarding house keeper, who was charged with conspiracy in the death of President Lincoln. Her attorney, Frederick Aiken, played by James McAvoy, is a Union soldier, a veteran of the war who has little use for, and no desire to, defend her.

Appointed against his will as Defense Counsel in the Military Tribunal which would serve as the trial of the conspirators (we were still at war when the crimes occurred) Lt. Aiken has no desire to defend Mrs. Surratt. He is openly contemptuous of all the conspirators, believing that they are all guilty and should be hung. But as the story unfolds, even though there is little doubt that the charges are all true, Lt. Aiken comes to see the trial for what it is, a quick way to bury the whole affair, without ever really arriving at the whole truth behind the assassination plot. There is still credible speculation today that General McClellan, having opposed Lincoln in the Party Convention of 1864 as a candidate for President, was involved in the plot. He had also been fired by Lincoln, who replaced him with General Grant.

Denied any access to witnesses, cross examination, papers and documents, as well as not being allowed to confer with the accused prior to the trial, make it impossible for Lt. Aiken to do his job in defending Mrs. Surratt. But as he comes to realize the error of rushing to judgement, he is forced to deal with his feelings about the powers that have been given to him, and by whom.

The history contained in this film already being well known, I cannot be considered a "spoiler" when I tell you that he loses the case and Mrs. Surratt is hung along with her co-conspirators. She would be the only woman put to death by the Federal Government until 1950, when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were both electrocuted for passing the hydrogen bomb secrets to the Soviet Union.

With many parallels to today's War Tribunals, the rush to judgement after John Kennedy was killed, and the humanitarian issues involved in the Rosenberg case, this film is engaging and tightly woven. The whole story takes place in the space of 10 weeks.

Top notch performances by all, and flawless direction by Robert Redford make this a must-see film for all. From the politically correct, anti tribunal crowd, to the "hang 'em high" viewer, this film has something for everyone, even serious history buffs such as myself.

"Judgment at Nuremberg" with Spencer Tracy, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich and Judy Garland

This landmark film, made in 1961, the same year in which Israel was trying Adolf Eichmann for Mass Murder, is a stirring production concerned with the responsibility we all hold toward one another as human beings.

The Chief Judge, played by Spencer Tracy, (William Shatner plays his Aide) has never been in the war, and is shocked by the devastation and destruction that he sees when he arrives in Nuremberg, which had been the seat of the Nazi Party. He is tasked with judging the defendants, all of whom were judges in Germany prior to, and throughout, the war. They were responsible for implementing the laws enacted by the Nazi Party. These laws included forced sterilization, denial of race mixing and other social programs that were all part of Germany's plans to exterminite Jews, Gyspy's and any others who did not measure up to the standards set forth by law.

The War Crime Tribunal is of the opinion that these judges should have stood against these laws, even if it meant the ends of their careers, and possibly their lives. From the perspective of the Defendants this would only have resulted in other, more pro-Nazi judges being appointed, with no question as to how they would have acted in implementing these laws.

Burt Lancaster is the German judge who finally comes to realize the damage done by the collective silence of his fellow judges. Montgomery Clift is brilliant as a victim of forced sterilization. Marlene Dietrich plays the widow of a German officer who has been executed for his crimes in a previous trial. Her home is now the residence of the American judge played by Spencer Tracy. From one another they learn just what a person will do, and how far they will go, in order to protect what is theirs. Sometimes it is not an easy call to make.

As Tracy struggles to understand just how the German people allowed the Holocaust to happen, he is confronted by the spectre of our own shortcomings as "victors" in the war. The German Counsel for the Defense, played by Maximilian Schell, is very adept at bringing to light our own nation's sins against our fellow man. Quoting from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and the American Constitution's "Seperate but Equal" clause, and invoking the horror of our own experiments with "Eugenics" in the late 1930's, usually against blacks and people with low IQ's, he brings stunning reality to bear on the questions of who is right and what is wrong. Does morality change with time and circumstance? Is there ever a real reason to commit Genocide?

This film is timeless in it's subject matter. When Richard Widmark gives his impassioned speech about the brutality of the Nazi's and the futility of Appeasment, one cannot help think about the current debate concerning Islamic Fundamentalism. When does tolerance become foolish? What lengths are acceptable to employ in wiping out evil? And mostly, what are our responsibilities as individuals in standing up to the things that would destroy us all.

The tension of the courtroom scenes, and the sharp direction of a tightly written script, along with superb acting and a timeless question of morality all combine to make this a "must see" film.

Inconsistent Reasoning and Patriotism - Keeping America Safe?

I do not do politics here. I do, however, engage in examination of the various things I see and hear, for consistency. Let us examine the current flap over the Defense of the Terrorists in our Civilian Courts. While not wholly against the premise, I am outraged by the misinformation and distortion of history as provided by both sides in the debate.

In 1770 the American colonies were spoiling for war. The Boston Tea Party had already happened. The Boston Massacre had taken place and the trial of the British soldiers responsible, including the Captain who gave the order to fire, was underway. John Adams, one of our noted Founding Fathers would defend them. All but 2 were acquitted, the Captain included. Mr. Adams called it “…one of the most gallant, generous …..and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

This past week many analogies have surfaced telling us that this was a glorious moment in American history which showcases the need to defend terrorism suspects in our Civilian Courts. While I am not in total disagreement with this, I must point out the inaccuracies of the argument. I can’t help it. I have to set the record straight.

In 1770 there was no America. Just a colony under English law. The court in which Mr. Adams tried his defendants was an English court. America would not have her own independent courts until after 1776, and officially not until after the Revolution had ended in 1781 at Yorktown. During the Revolution, Military Tribunals were the norm in dealing with enemy combatants, when warranted.

As for Mr. Adams having done “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country”, let us examine this phrase.

The country he was serving at the time was England. The result of his defense was that 7 out of the 9 accused in the massacre, including the Captain who ordered it, were set free. In other words, Mr. Adams helped to free, in an English Court, the English soldiers who had massacred his neighbors.

And yet this episode is being held aloft as the reason why we must defend the terrorists in our courts with lawyers from the Justice Department, even while not knowing who they are and who their previous business dealings have involved.

If this sounds harsh, consider this. In 1770 the American colonies were, as I have stated earlier, spoiling for a fight. What better way to bring it to a boil than by defending and helping to free the soldiers who had murdered the civilians in Boston. Mr. Adams may have had an ulterior motive other than that of rendering “one of the best pieces of service” he ever undertaken for his country. Although undoubtedly a Patriot, his country at the time was England, the same as the Defendants. He was also a son of Samuel Adams, a noted smuggler and enemy of the Crown.

The lesson is clear in the outcome. 7 out of the 9 soldiers who committed sanctioned murder by the Crown that day were freed. Now ask yourself if justice was served. Then apply these lessons of history to the current debate and draw your own conclusions.

My own opinion is that the entire argument is specious and without merit. An apple is being compared to an orange in a grand effort to confuse the public. What do you think?